pro_create_order

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions return value (order ID), order status ENUM, and the [PRIVATE] tag implying authorization needed. However, it does not disclose side effects on balances, authentication requirements beyond optional jwt, or any limitations like rate limits. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three concise sentences plus a status ENUM list. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides type-specific details. It is efficient with word count, though the status ENUM could be integrated more smoothly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains return value (order ID) and order status ENUM. It covers all three order types and their requirements. It references a sibling tool for status checking. It is reasonably complete for a creation tool, though it could mention cancellation methods or common errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described. The description adds crucial cross-parameter constraints (e.g., price required for limit, stop_price required for stop-limit) that are not in the schema's required array. This provides decision logic for the agent beyond the schema definitions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states 'Create Limit/Market/Stop order in PRO Trading' with a clear verb-resource combination. It lists the order types and notes it returns order ID, distinguishing from broker-related siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides specific conditions for when parameters are required (price for limit, both price and stop_price for stop-limit) and notes that market orders execute at current price. It also suggests using pro_get_open_orders for status checking. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus broker or other order tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.